HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Young, E. O. Articles by Briggs, R. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Young, E. O. Articles by Briggs, R. D. Agricola Articles by Young, E. O. Articles by Briggs, R. D. Related Collections Field-Scale Studies Nutrient Cycling Ground Water Quality

Nitrogen Dynamics among Cropland and Riparian Buffers

Soil-Landscape Influences

^a Dep. of Plant and Soil Science, Univ. of Vermont, Hills Agricultural Building, 105 Carrigan Dr., Burlington, VT 05405
^b Dep. of Forest and Natural Resources Management, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Dr., Syracuse, NY 13210

View larger version (121K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Digital orthophotograph of the (A) Spafford Creek and (B) Onondaga Creek research sites in Onondaga County, NY showing paired cropland-riparian plots and monitoring well locations. Established riparian forest buffer plots at Spafford Creek (SB9, SB10) were located approximately 300 m north of the downstream sampling location (not shown on map). Soil series boundaries represent the original soil survey (1:20000) mapping of Hutton and Rice (1977) from the SSURGO database (ChB = Collamer; Hb = Hamlin, LsC = Lansing, PgB = Palmyra, PpB = Phelps, Rh = Rhinebeck, Te = Teel, and Wn = Wayland).

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (A) Hourly rainfall, (B) soil water content in the Ap and B horizon for SB1, and (C) tile drainage and stream water discharge during the 2005 field season at Spafford Creek. Soil water content values are means for Ap (n = 2) and B (n = 3) horizons.

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (A) Potentiometric heads in the SB1 and OB1 grass-willow riparian buffers during 2004 and (B) changes in relative ground water elevation for the SC1-SB1 well pair during 2005 at Spafford Creek. Dashed lines are potentiometric heads in the deeper piezometer for each pair. The first letter indicates site (S = Spafford, O = Onondaga), the third letter indicates relative depth (S = shallow, D = deep), and numbers refer to location (1 = outside of willow strip, 2 = near-stream zone).

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Conceptual hydrologic model of shallow ground water flow in the surficial, unconfined aquifers at the sites. The solid arrow on the soil surface depicts predominant horizontal ground water flow direction in upper portions of the saturated zone. The solid arrow within the aquifer depicts slight upward flow components (e.g., discharge) at the near-stream area. The dashed arrow represents potential inputs to stream discharge from deeper, progressively older ground water flow paths. Ground water flow lines are based on three-point ground water flow analyses and potentiometric heads measured by nested piezometers in the near-stream zone during 2004 to 2005. Well depths and water table depth depict average site conditions. Note piezometers and lysimeters are not pictured.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationships between (A) study average ground water nitrate (NO3–) and average water table depth (WTD), (B) average ground water NO3– and average ground water dissolved oxygen (DO), (C) average ground water DO and average WTD, and (D) soil organic matter (OM) and average WTD for riparian soils.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Relationship between observed average cropland ground water nitrate (NO3–) and average cropland ground water NO3– predicted by multiple linear regression with study average 50-cm depth soil solution NO3– and ground water dissolved oxygen as independent variables. Bands represent 95% confidence intervals for the regression line.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Study averages for shallow ground water nitrate (n = 14), ammonium (n = 14), dissolved oxygen (n = 9), and water table depth (n = 14) among cropland and buffer plots over 2004 to 2005. Error bars are estimated standard errors for within plot means.